Originally Posted by hitman13
What you consider an AW, the rest of America simply calls firearms. LEOSA states that owning it would be fine, as long as the person in possession is covered by LEOSA.... IIRC this is the same type of situation that they tried to hang Drew Peterson on, unsuccessfully. Now, that may not be binding case law or anything, but it is the only case that I am currently aware of.
Unless you want to civilly discuss why I am wrong, which I may be..
I'm not saying you are wrong, nor did I. What I am simply saying is that LEOSA has nothing to do with officer purchasing/owning AW. I guess I should make that a CA specific comment since, yes of course, AWs are strictly defined compared to what commonly passes as firearms in another state.
If a CA peace officer walks into a FFL/AW dealer and tries to purchase a weapon with the LEOSA argument, it will fall on deaf ears.
I get your argument. I understand that possession/carrying is an entirely different ball of wax.